Effect of long term noninvasive ventilation in children on parent's quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: Improving or maintaining the quality of life of the family of children treated with long term continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is a major concern; but studies are scarce. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of long term CPAP or NIV in children on anxiety, depression, quality of sleep, and quality of life of their parents. METHODS: Validated questionnaires evaluating anxiety and depression (hospital anxiety and depression scale), sleep quality (Pittsburgh sleep quality index), daytime sleepiness (Epworth sleepiness scale), and parents' quality of life (PedsQL family impact module) were completed by parents of children who were started on CPAP/NIV before (M0) and after 6-9 months (M6) of treatment. RESULTS: The questionnaires of 36 parents (30 mothers, 6 fathers) of 31 children were analyzed. For the entire group, no significant change was observed in anxiety, depression, sleep quality, daytime sleepiness, and quality of life between M0 and M6. When analyzing questionnaire class changes between M0 and M6: anxiety was relieved in 23% of parents and worsened in 29%, depression was relieved in 14% and worsened in 20%, sleep quality improved in 43% and worsened in 27%, sleepiness improved in 26% and worsened in 17%, with no change in the other parents. CONCLUSION: Long term CPAP/NIV in children had no significant effect on parents' anxiety, depression, sleep quality, and quality of life.

Quality of poly(somno)graphy recordings in children.

The aim of the study was to assess the scorability of the signals of four poly(somno)graphy devices and transcutaneous carbon dioxide tracings (PtcCO2 ) of one device in children. The presence (0%, < 25%, 25%-50%, 50%-75%, 75%-99%, 100% of recording time) and quality (bad, average, good) of the signal of each sensor were analysed. During a 5-month period, 364 poly(somno)graphies were performed in 12 different hospital units. Forty-one children had poor/bad cooperation, and 13 severe behaviour disorders. Seventy-one and 293 poly(somno)graphies were performed in children aged ≤ 2 and > 2 years, respectively; nine poly(somno)graphies failed. For the four poly(somno)graphy devices, the signal was present during 99% of recording time for the electroencephalogram, 99% for thoracic belt, 97% for abdominal belt, 97% for body position, 95% for the microphone, 92% for pulse oximetry, 87% for tracheal sound, 71% for oronasal thermistor, 52% (41% for ≤ 2 years, 55% for > 2 years old) for nasal pressure and 86% for PtcCO2 . The signal was of good quality in 98% of poly(somno)graphies for body position, 96% for microphone, 96% for thoracic belt, 95% for pulse oximetry, 91% for abdominal belt, 91% for tracheal sound, 82% for oronasal thermistor, 78% for electroencephalogram, 73% for nasal pressure and 46% of PtcCO2 recordings. The scorability was comparable between devices. Nasal pressure and oronasal thermistor had the lowest scorability, especially in children aged ≤ 2 years. This underlines the necessity of the development or improvement of alternative, ideally face-free, sensors, or miniaturized devices adapted for infants and children.

Parent-child co-sleeping in children with co-morbid conditions and sleep-disordered breathing.

PURPOSE: Co-sleeping is common in children with co-morbid conditions. The aim of the study was to analyze the prevalence and determinants of parent-child co-sleeping in children with co-morbid conditions and sleep-disordered breathing and the impact on parental sleep. METHODS: Parents of consecutive children undergoing a sleep study filled in a questionnaire on co-sleeping. RESULTS: The parents of 166 children (80 boys, median age 5.7 years (0.5-21) participated in this study. The most common co-morbid conditions of the children were Down syndrome (17%), achondroplasia (11%), and Chiari malformation (8%). The prevalence of parent-child co-sleeping was 46%. Reasons for co-sleeping were mainly reactive and included child's demand (39%), crying (19%), nightmares (13%), medical reason (34%), parental reassuring or comforting (27%), and/or over-crowding (21%). Sixty-eight percent of parents reported that co-sleeping improved their sleep quality because of reassurance/comforting (67%), reduced nocturnal awakening (23%), and child supervision (44%). Forty percent of parents reported that co-sleeping decreased their sleep quality because of nocturnal awakenings or early wake up, or difficulties initiating sleep (by 77% and 52% of parents, respectively), whereas both positive and negative associations were reported by 29% of the parents. Co-sleeping was more common with children < 2 years of age as compared to older children (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Parent-child co-sleeping is common in children with co-morbid conditions and sleep-disordered breathing. Co-sleeping was mainly reactive and had both positive and negative associations with parental sleep quality. Co-sleeping should be discussed on an individual basis with the parents in order to improve the sleep quality of the family.